AgdaPkt 2004-05-24 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

��- � i , 5,000 square feet of convenience retail. Section 17.10 of the FEIR ident�es Altemative .. 8 as the "environmentally superior alternative" under CEQA. Findings: As compared to the Project, Altemative 8 would result in substantially reduced, but still significar;t, environmental impacts in the are:�s of land use, visual factors, transportation and circulation, biological resources, hydro'ogy and water quality, infrastructure and public services, soils and geology, pubiic health and safety, noise, cultural and historic resources, and air quality. With respect to population, housing and employment, Alternative 8, despite having fewer new residential units than the proposed Project, would nonetheless, because of the reduction in commercial development, have a positive effect on the existing citywide imbalance between jobs and employed residents, reducing in-commuting. Altemative 8 would, however, not attain basic Project objectives identified in the discussion of the No Project Altemative above, with 56 percent fewer residential units than the proposed Project (and a substantial reduction in commercial retail and office floor area) and an overall scope of development which would reduce Project revenue so that the Project, ff financially sustainable at all, could not generate su�cient revenue to provide public access, waterfront features and other community-serving amenities which are fundamental, ' identified Project objectives. Based on the foregoing and the discussion in Section 17.8 of the FEIR, the City finds that, on balance, the Project provides substantially greater public benefits than Alternative 8 and that Alternative 8 is not a feasible altemative to the Project. I. Alternative Sites Description: The FEIR considered the possibility of altemative sites for the Project and concluded that there are no spec�c sites of adequate size and general character available in the Mid-Peninsula subregion where development of such a project could be undertaken that would accomplish most of the basic objectives of the Project and would avoid or substantially lessen the identified environmental impacts of the Project as proposed. Furthermore, the project applicant owns the Peninsula Marina portion of the proposed site and has a lease option to buy the Pete's Harbor portion. The project applicant has no controlling interest in any other property capable of meeting most of the basic objectives of the Project, nor can the applicant be reasonably expected to be able to acquire or control any particular site large enough to permit such a development, even if such a site could be identified, given the rarity of such sites in the Mid-Peninsula area (if any existj. Findings: Development of the Project at an altemative site is not feasible for the reasons described above and as more fully described in Section 17.9 of the FEIR. ; ( r i I � i � I _ i ,289,�2„�92�8.2 4, k Atly/Reso/Reso.1470 � 052004 I